https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=HVpJskHzlwo
Do you think the underlying reason for cancel culture is that we are so connected through technology but so isolated just wanting to be heard? What do you think is the deepest reason? Well, I don’t think that the underlying reason is for cancel culture is that we are so connected through technology. I think it would be happening anyways. I think it’s possible that technology facilitates the kind of bullying that cancel culture essentially represents by making it somewhat easier and also making it less likely that the people who are doing it are going to be held responsible for their actions. But I don’t think it’s the fact that we’re connected through technology and I presuming the questioner means modern technologies such as those that underlie the use of social media rather than, you know, books and print and TV and all those technologies that we’ve had for at least some time. The deepest reason for cancel culture. Well, I would say there’s two deep reasons. One is it’s a form of bullying and it might even be a female specific form of bullying or female. Not specific. That’s wrong. It’s the form of bullying that goes after reputations essentially. And that’s a feminine form of bullying because the feminine use of aggression tends to be reputation destruction and cancel culture is a manifestation of that. And I don’t know to what degree cancel culture and it’s assorted manifestations are a manifestation of the feminine tendency to destroy reputations. But it looks like it looks to me like there’s something to that. So we don’t know, right? We don’t know how female antisocial behavior proclivities are going to manifest themselves in the political realm, but we’d be foolish to think that they won’t because they certainly manifested themselves in, you know, male antisocial tendencies certainly manifested themselves in the male political realm. So why would we expect anything different on the female side? In any case? No, I think the reason that cancel culture exists is well that there’s this bullying issue, but there’s another deep reason which is that the philosophy upon which cancel culture rests is the philosophy that states that the fundamental motivating drive and the organizing principle of Western culture is power. And power is something like the. Ability to use force to compel others to act against. Their own best interests or to act against what they would freely choose. So it’s the antithesis of informed negotiation, right? If I have power over you, that means I can force you to do my will rather than negotiate with you to do our will or to allow you or to facilitate you using your will. So that’s how I’m going to use power in this discussion. And this culture war we’re in is fought against the philosophy that presumes that its power of that sort that structures are social relations. Now, if you believe that and you shouldn’t because it’s nonsense, it’s it’s the anti truth. Because that isn’t what structures are social relations. It’s an aberration upon what structures are social relations. Well, then you believe that people individuals are nothing but the mouthpiece of their group. And their their group identity is beneficial to them because it allows for their expression, the expression of their power and for the maintenance of their status and all of that. If you believe that, then there’s no dialogue between people. There’s only power struggle between groups. And so you don’t give someone who isn’t in your group the opportunity to speak or to exist for that matter. Why would you? Because they’re just doing their power thing and you’re doing your power thing. And it’s it’s a battle of all against all. And you want your power identity to win. So cancel culture is the logical outcome of that reasoning. Why would you you don’t engage with your opponents because there’s no you to engage. There’s no individual. There’s just the group identity expressed in power. So you can’t have a rational discussion, modify your axioms and come to a negotiated settlement that that’s all part of the enlightenment hypocrisy or even deeper than that. The Judeo-Christian hypocrisy. Now I take umbrage to that. Let’s say because I don’t believe that these principles are even Western in their derivation. I believe they’re human universal in their derivation. And so unless the people who are criticizing Western culture want to attribute to Western culture only the best of human culture because that’s what this is, which I think is something they would have a hard time swallowing. I don’t believe the best in human culture has manifested itself as the drive to power. I think that’s an appalling philosophy. I think the only people who believe that are those who use power to negotiate their own social relations and who wish they had the power to negotiate the broader social contract. So I think the hypothesis that power is the fundamental motivation is an unconscious confession on the part of its professors. And I think all of their actions indicate precisely that. So, you know who you’re dealing with when you hear someone who makes that claim. They’re either deeply cynical or they’re narcissistic or they’re Machiavellian or and and they believe that’s how everyone else is. I think that comes I think that’s absolutely clear. For example, in the writings of Derrida who is personally appalling as a human being in every possible way. And I mean, I think it is reasonable under most conditions to separate the thinker from his thoughts or her thoughts. But I’d be willing to make an exception in the case of Derrida. But he believed that power structures human relations. That’s where he got his sexual gratification was through the expression of power. And I believe he did think that that’s what structured human social relations. And that’s how he acted. That’s how he thought. And so his effect as the most cited social scientist ever is so pernicious that it’s it’s it’s absolutely beyond comprehension. So. So those are the reasons for cancel culture. It gives malevolent Machiavellians the. The opportunity to bully in a manner that destroys reputations without repercussion. And so there’s no shortage of fun in that. And it gives those and it’s required ideologically for the sake of consistency by those who claim that power is the fundamental structuring motivation of Western culture. Or perhaps culture at large in so far as it isn’t possible to distinguish between culture and Western culture. Unless, as I said, you’re willing to attribute all the positive aspects of human universal culture to the West. So the critique is broader than a critique of Western culture. That this is the point that I’m making. It’s a critique of the fundamental human endeavor, the golden thread that stretches back centuries. And when the cultural critics say that this is a war of fundamentals, they mean that this is a war that goes all the way to the bottom. It’s a war about whether or not it’s the logos that’s the center of motivation for human social structures. And their answer would be no. It’s the power mad adversary. So. You can you can draw from that statement whatever conclusion you want.